Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffmolly Date: Mar 9, 2004 2:32am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

Hi! We are aware that the domain squatters are essentially blocking access to various parts of our archive, and it is frustrating to us as well. We intend to archive the web for decades to come, and we know this problem will only compound as different people own a single domain name over time.

We are working on a system for time-based exclusions and hopefully this will solve the problem. However, for now we respect all robots.txt over all time.

If you have any more questions feel free to email info@archive.org and we can give you more specific answers!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Linda Seitz Date: Mar 20, 2004 4:33pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

I too am having the same problem. Ultsearch has taken over www.probe.net making access to previously stored content there a problem. Glad I saw this thread -- I was wondering why the content I had seen on WayBack Machine previously no longer appeared there.

By the way, thanks for the great service, Archive.org!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Mar 28, 2004 9:12am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

I find it interesting that the folks at archive.org feel free to use pejorative terms such as "squatters" about businesses with which they are obviously unfamiliar.

Ultimate Search provides paid-placement advertising links on its websites under contract to a company that consolidates such links. If Ultimate Search were to permit archive.org to store old copies of its pages, then it would result in people clicking on ad links whose term has expired. The consequent traffic would be flagged by the advertising consolidator as fraudulent stale traffic, and Ultimate Search would be penalized for that.

Ultimate Search utilizes the robots.txt exclusion feature in order to conform with the terms of its contract. It is ironic that their effort to obey their legal and contractual obligations is "annoying" to some. Tough. Perhaps you should consider joining the people who organize hacking attempts, domain name hi-jacking, denial of service attacks, e-mailbombing, and frivolous legal actions against Ultimate Search.

Using a time-based exclusion feature would cause other problems. For example, in situations where a domain name may have been used in the past for pornographic content, and is subsequently transferred to someone who desires to use the domain name for another purpose (e.g. the domain name may have been transferred as a consequence of a legal dispute), then it is perfectly understandable that the new owner does not want to be associated with the old contents of the site.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: UltHelpMe Date: Dec 23, 2004 7:51pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

jberryhill,I feel you can help me. I want to have an existed domain Ultsearch has registered, could you please tell me how to realize it. I send tens of email to dns@ultsearch.com and I, and I ask my friends to make a lot of call to 0085225379677.I know what I had done may bother the Ultsearch. Now I do some research online about Ultsearch and I think there is nothing wrong about Ultsearch according the laws and common sense. My only tiny complain is they should give me reply no matter they are willing to transfer or not. I believe jberryhill has the ability to help me out. By the way, actually I use the domain do commonwealth things, I hope I wish I expect jberryhill or other kind persons to help me out. My email is yale29@163.com waiting for your precious answers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ssybesma Date: Dec 31, 2006 8:27pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

Sorry but these people do not provide anything to the internet except advertising for a domain name. They are 110% worthless, selfish and greedy people. I hate them and wish they could be blacklisted. They don't belong on the internet if there's nothing on them. I would go much further than the people who operate this website, but I'm at least satisfied that they are in favor of not having the new domain name owner be able to block everything that _used_ to be accessible on that domain. In my opinion, they don't have that right. Only the original content-provider has a right to determine who can and can't access their old archived site.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Jun 16, 2007 9:25pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?


"I hate them"

Well, I suppose the world should develop more hate-based policies to make you happy.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ssybesma Date: Jun 17, 2007 8:13am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

The other thing I would do is torture and execute rude people like you who stick their nose into someone else's business for the sole purpose of attacking them.

Touché retard!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Lys Date: Apr 3, 2004 1:22am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

Relating allowing people to see content of a site before another company is related to DOSing a site? That is rather inflated.

I have no problems with Ultimate search blocking archive.org from indexing their site SINCE they bought it, but what right do they have to deny people the right to see content before they took it over?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Apr 5, 2004 11:04pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

What right? Surely you are joking. The question is, in the absence of a mechanism for obtaining consent from a former site owner, what right does the Archive have to make that old content available?

Let's look at what you are proposing here. Say that I own a website, and I do not want the internet archive to make my old content available. So, I use a robots.txt exclusion. Then, at some time in the future, I either transfer the domain name to someone else, or just abandon the domain name. Do you seriously believe that some future owner of the domain name has the right to make my old content available? Hardly.

It has been explained to you that Ultimate Search uses robots.txt in order to comply with their advertising contracts. Your "what right" question quite frankly misses the point entirely. Why don't you explain how Ultimate Search is supposed to comply with their contractual obligations? Furthermore, why don't you explain what gives YOU the right to dictate to other people how to run their websites?

Sorry, but the internet is not the fascist wonderland you want it to be.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ejegg Date: May 5, 2004 9:27am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

We're both arguing against the same flawed policy here. You and I both believe that you own the rights to the content you create right now, and we both believe that archive.org should honor a deny run in your current robots.txt for the content you're serving at the time of the crawl. The problem is that future owners are given control over previous owner's content by the rules of archive.org. I.e. because you control blah.com now means you can opt in or out, but you can't change the historical record of the previous owner's content, nor should future owners of one of your domains be able to make your current data available by having no deny rule.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: May 6, 2004 1:34am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?


Can anyone explain to me how Ultsearch is responsible for the way that Archive.org runs their archive? Ultsearch desires not to have its sites archived. The point above about "where the traffic appears to come from" is completely wrong, since affiliate advertisers do not look at referrer-IP fields in HTTP requests, they look at embedded affiliate ID codes in the referenced URL. Perhaps you would like to have spent the time arguing over that point with advertisers who consider traffic from cached or archived sites to be non-legitimate traffic in breach of contract, since you apparently believe you have the right to tell other people how to manage their business and how the world "should" work.

But let's get this absolutely clear. Ultsearch is not blocking access to site contents of prior domain name registrants. Archive.org is the one doing that. Ultsearch uses robots.txt to cut down on non-human traffic bandwidth and to keep their own links from being archived and generating stale referral traffic. If you explain how Ultsearch is supposed to (a) prevent archiving of their sites, and (b) have Archive.org provide access to the old sites, then you are welcome to explain how Ultsearch is supposed to do that.

As far as other sites which copy things like AP and Reuters wire stories, the legitimate sites like Yahoo, etc, have their own licenses. Other sites, such as freerepublic.com have been the subject of lawsuits which have not at all led to ambiguous results. Copyright owners can certainly control the terms under which their material is copied and distributed. That is the presumptive starting point. I do not raise this point to suggest that someone else can assert the copyright on behalf of its owner - as is clear, Archive.org is the one blocking the old content by the way they configure their interpretation of robots.txt. Ultsearch does not care one way or the other whether the old content is made available.

The point is that I understand why Archive.org does it the way they do. In response to a complaint by a new webmaster finding out about Archive.org, their response is to tell the webmaster that they may use robots.txt to block archiving. That usually takes care of the conflict. What I have stated before is that, with respect to former domain owners, Archive.org has no simple automated way of obtaining a current indication of consent to store and reproduce the old material. That would put Archive.org on thinner ice than they already are. That should be a fairly simple point, and it is surprising that this has been twisted into an assertion that someone other than the copyright owner can object.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: May 11, 2004 3:13am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

"nor should future owners of one of your domains be able to make your current data available by having no deny rule"

...and therein lies the problem. For "current" robots.txt requests, it is only a rough approximation that the webmaster can speak for the copyright owner of the site content. The current webmaster might, or might not, be the copyright owner.

But the administrative overhead in managing permissions for all sites for all time would be challenging. Consider the situation where a former site owner was unaware of archive.org, was not using robots.txt blocking, and now discovers that their old content is available here. What should that person then do in order to remove their copyrighted material from the archive, if they so desire? Write to archive.org with a removal request? Then how does that person establish to archive.org that they are the copyright owner of the material in question?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: abigdog Date: Dec 7, 2008 12:49am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

according to the copyright lawyers quoted in this NY Times article, robots.txt is voluntary. these lawyers don't believe copyright law requires the internet archive to get a website owner's permission to archive a site:

from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/technology/13suit.html

Even if they had, it is unclear that any laws would have been broken.
"First of all, robots.txt is a voluntary mechanism," said Martijn Koster, a Dutch software engineer and the author of a comprehensive tutorial on the robots.txt convention (robotstxt.org). "It is designed to let Web site owners communicate their wishes to cooperating robots. Robots can ignore robots.txt."
William F. Patry, an intellectual property lawyer with Thelen Reid & Priest in New York and a former Congressional copyright counsel, said that violations of the copyright act and other statutes would be extremely hard to prove in this case.
He said that the robots.txt file is part of an entirely voluntary system, and that no real contract exists between the nonprofit Internet Archive and any of the historical Web sites it preserves.
"The archive here, they were being the good guys," Mr. Patry said, referring to the archive's recognition of robots.txt commands. "They didn't have to do that."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: May 6, 2004 1:51am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

"The problem is that future owners are given control over previous owner's content by the rules of archive.org."

And whose fault is that?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: pleasehelp Date: May 10, 2004 11:34am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

So if I'd like to buy a domain name from ultsearch, could someone please help me access the appropriate contact information? Thanks

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ruind Date: Apr 8, 2004 5:52pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

Your reasoning is quite obviously flawed. Traffic originating from the archive would appear as such to your customers, it would not appear that you had stale links on UltimateSearch.

As for your comments about "What right does the archive have blah blah blah," they have every right. Without explicit consent of the domain owners regarding the content specifically, no copyrights are transferred to you. Further, buying a particular domain name (i.e. the right to have dns servers resolve a particular string of words to your computer) does in no way give you copyrights or other legal rights pertaining to former owners of the domain name in question. Not only that, but in some cases you do not even gain the right to use the domain name you purchased because of the copyright claims of the former owners. In other words, if I have copyright on a particular phrase and I own a corresponding domain name, and subsequently lose that domain name but retain my copyright, I can bar you from doing anything with the domain name, even though you own it. It is quite obvious that you do not have the right to prohibit anyone from looking at material that once occupied a domain name you now have ownership of. Further, it is questionable whether you have the right to deny anyone from looking at material that you make publically available (like your current websites).

edit - I'd also like to add that your little "fascist" comment is what's known as "projection". You're trying to make out like other people are doing what you in fact are doing, perhaps to make yourself feel better about it. Either way, anyone who equates the free sharing of information with "fascism" has at least a few screws loose.

This post was modified by ruind on 2004-04-09 00:52:44

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Apr 15, 2004 5:46am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

If I choose to make material available on my website for a limited time, and I do not want it accessible via an archive, I certainly have every right to do that. Many newspapers do exactly that, relative to current news and their archives for which they charge fees. I own the copyright in material I publish, and I can choose to make it available today, and non-available next week. That is simply fundamental.

The question is not whether a current domain owner has a "right" to deny access to material made available by a former domain name owner. Presumptively, you need the copyright owner's permission to copy things. If the former domain name owner is not available, how does archive.org obtain an indication of that permission? The answer is they can't. The robots.txt is a rough approximation, but it can only reflect the current owner's intentions.

Suppose someone uses say, your personal name as a domain name, and publishes pornography, defamatory information, hate speech, or other obnoxious material. Later, they abandon the domain name and you take it over. Are you telling me that you are somehow required to keep that material forever associated with your current domain name via the archive?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ruind Date: Apr 15, 2004 7:17am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

"If I choose to make material available on my website for a limited time, and I do not want it accessible via an archive, I certainly have every right to do that."

Only if you provide access restrictions which specifically require the user to agree to that condition before they view the material. If you simply have your information out there for anyone, the issue is still going both ways in the courts (some courts say it can be copied freely if it's freely available, some say it can't). The point is that your blank assertion that it is not ok is supported neither by current copyright law, nor overwhelming court precedent.

"Many newspapers do exactly that, relative to current news and their archives for which they charge fees. I own the copyright in material I publish, and I can choose to make it available today, and non-available next week. That is simply fundamental."

The newspapers you refer to require registrations to view that material, and those registrations require the explicit agreement of the viewer to those terms. Newspapers which publish their stories without such a registration in fact DO get their articles copied and archived over and over across the web, eg. by Google News, Yahoo News, Sladhdot, Fark etc.

"Suppose someone uses say, your personal name as a domain name, and publishes pornography, defamatory information, hate speech, or other obnoxious material. Later, they abandon the domain name and you take it over. Are you telling me that you are somehow required to keep that material forever associated with your current domain name via the archive?"

I am not required to do anything, but if you are asking if the archive has the right to continue associating the two, the answer is obviously yes. Your point is an emotional appeal and quite obviously lacking in merit.

-michael

This post was modified by ruind on 2004-04-15 14:17:29

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Apr 15, 2004 5:52am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

"As for your comments about "What right does the archive have blah blah blah," they have every right. Without explicit consent of the domain owners regarding the content specifically, no copyrights are transferred to you"

That is precisely the point. Where did the archive get the explicit consent of the copyright owner to copy and publish the copyright owner's material?

The robots.txt option only provides a way of saying "no" for those who are aware of it. I am absolutely certain that for the bulk of the web's existence thus far archived, most webmasters are and have been completely unaware that every previous version of their site - including material they would not want made available now - has been squirrelled away by the archive and made available.

So you seem to understand that copying requires the written consent of the copyright owner. Now, where did archive.org get everyone's written consent?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: eXOBeX Date: Sep 16, 2004 8:44am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

"Where did the archive get the explicit consent of the copyright owner to copy and publish the copyright owner's material?"

Where did you get the explicit consent of the copyright owner to block access to and publishing of the copyright owner's material?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Sep 17, 2004 2:30pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?


I'll try one more time for the less thoughtful...

Ultimate Search is NOT blocking access to content at website prior to the time they obtain a domain name - the Internet Archive is doing that.

What Ultimate Search is contractually obligated to do is to block "bots" from following paid links on their web pages. This includes the "bots" from Google, Alexa, and, yes, the Internet Archive. The advertisers are paying for human traffic, not automated traffic. The only way to stop that non-human traffic is to use a robots.txt file that tells bots "do not crawl the links here".

It is the Internet Archive, not Ultimate Search, that treats a current "do not crawl" as effective for all prior history. The only reason I brought up the issue of consent is that I assume the Internet Archive made that policy decision because of the legal uncertainty concerning copyright issues associated with the Archive, and that they do not have a mechanism for prior owners to opt in or opt out. Internet Archive can only access the current robots.txt file.

So, what would you suggest Ultimate Search do to change the way the Internet Archive runs their website? Because it is not Ultimate Search's fault that the Internet Archive blocks ALL prior content on the basis of a current robots.txt file, and Ultimate Search does not claim a "right" to block access to prior content. Ultimate Search is NOT blocking access to prior content, but MUST block traffic from automated web crawling software. What gives you, or anyone, the right to dictate how others should permit use of their server bandwidth?



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: eXOBeX Date: Sep 19, 2004 2:40am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

"So, what would you suggest Ultimate Search do to change the way the Internet Archive runs their website?"
Well, you could stop replacing decent websites with your FAKE search engines, for a start! NOBODY wants to see these fake sites. The only reason you get hits is because people have tried to visit the ORIGINAL site, not yours.
By the way, searching for "ps2 disc read error" finds 4 hits on your site, but 47,300 hits on Google. Hardly "the Ultimate Search", is it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Sep 19, 2004 4:10am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?


If you prefer "server not found" errors for abandoned domain names, you are entitled to that preference.

This forum is for discussing the Internet Archive, and the subject of this thread is why does the Internet Archive block all history for a domain, based on a current robots.txt file. The question is, what is it that you would like Ultimate Search to do in order to change the way the Internet Archive works.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ruind Date: Apr 15, 2004 7:15am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

"That is precisely the point. Where did the archive get the explicit consent of the copyright owner to copy and publish the copyright owner's material?"

No, the point is that it is not currently decided whether or not it is legal to archive freely available (restrictionless) information, but what IS decided is that someone with absolutely no claim to a particular copyright also has no grounds to defend it. If the original copyright owners wish to bring the issue to court they can, but you cannot.

-michael

This post was modified by ruind on 2004-04-15 14:15:04

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: TopLawyer Date: May 1, 2004 12:31am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

John,

Maybe you forgot to mention you are one of UltSearch's lawyers team ?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=john+berryhill+ultimate+search&lr=

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffsimon c Date: May 1, 2004 2:32am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

A couple of other interesting links related to Ultimate Search:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum16/981.htm

..and particularly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,671078,00.html

I'm not surprised they have taken notice - this thread is #5 on a Google search for 'ultsearch'.

s!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ruind Date: May 1, 2004 4:32am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

In his defense, he actually did mention that he was a lawyer for ultsearch.

*edit - actually, I think that was in a different thread, so nevermind!

-michael

This post was modified by ruind on 2004-05-01 11:32:59

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: May 6, 2004 1:57am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

"Maybe you forgot to mention you are one of UltSearch's lawyers team ?"

And maybe you forgot to mention your name at all. I presume you are making an interesting assumption based on a user name, but I fail to understand your point.

Anonymous people have fascinating egoes, Mr. "Top Lawyer"

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Sep 17, 2004 2:49pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?


Who is claiming a right to defend someone else's copyright? The point was about why the Internet Archive treats robots.txt files, and I speculate the reason they do that is to avoid claims by copyright owners who have no mechanism to opt out of the Archive.

Are you saying that Ultimate Search does not have a right to block automated programs from accessing their websites? That's just absurd.

Ultimate Search is simply not responsible for the way that the Internet Archive software operates to treat a current robots.txt denial. Your issue is with the Internet Archive, not Ultimate Search.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: eXOBeX Date: Sep 16, 2004 8:28am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

Ultimate Search are the worst scum of the Internet. CyberSquatting isn't the word for it, as squatters don't burn every trace of your existence, as Ultimate Search does with your website via robots.txt.

In my opinion the Blaster worm was obviously misdirected. If my machine was infected with a virus that performed DOS attacks on the ultsearch servers, I wouldn't be in much of a rush to perform a virus scan - hell, I'd boot up the rest of my PCs and get them doing it too!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Dec 13, 2004 3:35am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?


So what is stopping you? Why don't you simply launch DDOS attacks, write your own virus modifications, send email bombs, or hack servers? I'm sure you can enlist lots of volunteers, right here, to engage in all sorts of malicious and illegal activity. Let's engage archive.org in a criminal conspiracy, shall we.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: abigdog Date: Dec 7, 2008 12:26am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

what about providing a 48 hour "amnesty" period once a month, during which robots.txt files are altered to allow internet archive access? that way users who want to retrieve archived material have at least a few days per month when its possible.

no, ultsearch isn't legally obligated to do that, but it would be a nice gesture in the community interest.

come on, show us lawyers DO have a heart.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ssybesma Date: Dec 31, 2006 8:32pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

Yes, they are indeed scum. They are the ones that want to deny you access to the old domain owner's archived information. I think it's because they are trying to 'purify' the domain name in case the new owner bitches about the content on the old site coming up in discussion.

Well, that's too bad for the new owner and it's too bad for the domain squatters.

You may have a right to jump on a domain name once the registration expires, but you don't inherit the rights to what used to be on it. When you register a domain name, the rights that come with that are rights to the _present_ usage of the name, not the past or future usage of the name.

I'm with you all the way brother.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: UltHelpMe Date: Feb 9, 2005 9:08pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

When I write to your cool lawyer in this forum I had sent more than 10 emails to ultsearch, and now I think the number may reach 100. I respect and admire ultsearch, and always waiting for their answers. Yes I want to buy a domain ultsearch owns. Please all the kind people in the world come to help me because I use this domain for the commonwealth not only me. Please give me instructions, welcome to write to me by yale29@163.com HELP!!!SOS!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jimmy2 Date: Apr 18, 2006 7:53am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

Ha, suddenly jberryhill is quiet. Typical.

The obvious reason there was no reason is that because of the squatter syndrome. Squatters don't like to be found out. Once you expose them, they run and hide or give in.

Back in 2000 Ultimate Searc (ultsearch) was using this address in their WHOIS' records:

dns@ultsearch.com
Ult. Search Inc.
Suites 1601-1603, 16F, 32 Hollywood Road
Central, HK
Phone- 852 2537 9677

or

GPO Box 7862
Central, HONG KONG
dns@ultsearch.com
852 2537 9677

Now, they are too scared to even use that. They use a privacy protection service.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jberryhill Date: Jan 2, 2007 7:00am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

" Ha, suddenly jberryhill is quiet. Typical. "

"Suddenly"... as in "sometime between February 2005 and April 2006.

If you would bother to do some research, you'd find that Ultimate Search sold its entire domain portfolio at the end of 2004:

http://www.michaelwong.com/archives/000302.html

to Marchex Inc. (NASDAQ: MCHX)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: abigdog Date: Dec 6, 2008 11:46pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Bypassing ultsearch?

here we are in december of 2008, about 4 years later ... and you're STILL working on it??

i'm a computer programmer and i'm pretty sure this can't be that difficult to do.

please fix this ... if you need technical help to do it, i'm sure there are people out there willing to lend a hand.